“MICHAEL KEMPS (incumbent)
”Paid parking makes sense but needs careful consideration to avoid unintended consequences. Concerns include reduced costs for residents versus visitors, impact to surrounding neighborhoods by those seeking to avoid costs, and potential push back from the Coastal Commission. It’s time to commence a study to analyze this an bring it forward. Filming is a second source. Residents accepting some inconvenience(s) may be worth offsetting what is primarily property/parcel tax driven revenue. In exchange for inconvenience, the city needs to maximize its fee schedule for filming to create a more sizable revenue stream. Streamlining the building process and updating the city’s fee schedule regularly are ways encourage people to remodel homes while maximizing this revenue source.

Another non-tax revenue option is utilizing Farnham Martin Park for weddings, providing seating and services, in exchange for fees. Many visitors and residents target the Farnham Martin Park Fountain for family and event photography; this use indicates that demand exists for the location. Targeting those seeking wedding and/or corporate events with a city offering may produce an opportunity to capitalize on additional non-tax revenue.

Some specific grants are available; but many are restricted by income or to targeted projects and may have unacceptable restrictions (“handcuffs”). Grants also typically require that the city’s general fund be used for some percentage of matching funds, which complicates an already-constrained cash position. The city pursued and received approval for a grant for Farnham Martin Park renovation. A Request For Proposal (RFP) is pending to utilize these funds.””

“VICTORIA LOZZI (incumbent)
”It is always in the best interest of the residents to maximize revenues and continually look for new revenue opportunities. While ideas like paid parking could generate incremental revenue, it is unlikely that would significantly “move the needle” in a way that would have a material impact on the budget. Similarly for things like grants – there could be opportunities for revenue from time to time, e.g. for specific projects, but unlikely to produce reliable, continual annual revenue for the budget each and every year. That said, we should of course always be looking for any incremental revenue, but at the same time ensure we are maximizing the revenues we have by looking for ways to increase revenue at our concessions and continually review our development and other permit fees to ensure we are fully recovering our costs to process those permits, as allowed by law.””

“DAVID MCGOWAN (incumbent)
”A significant non-tax revenue source was created during my current term through my leadership in founding The Palos Verdes Estates Foundation. This foundation has been well received and with the support of many interested residents has provided over $1 million to fund specific needs within the city which the community could not otherwise afford.

There is no question that our city needs additional revenue. The community must recognize that the majority of city’s expenditures are mandated by law (i.e. Public Safety, Streets, Sewers, Storm Drains) and that there are limited discretionary expenditures. The city’s negative economic trend is directly related to the fact that reserves have been tapped to fund current operations (when Measure D failed monies were consumed and never replaced). The Measure E tax is sunsetting and contains no annual escalator thereby purchasing power weakens each year. I believe we need to consider retiring it earlier and replacing it.

The city needs to explore a combination of funding alternatives including potential grant funding, parking fees, and user fees charged by the city. We should explore creating a Parks District that could focus on funding maintenance of open spaces. Often grant resources are available to support protection of parklands and natural areas.

The city needs to engage with the LA County Fire Department in discussions regarding their obligation to fund fire house improvements.

Given the magnitude of financial needs we most likely are going to need a combination of revenue enhancing strategies.””

“DESIREE “DEZ” MYERS
”RE: How do you view quality of life options for new revenue
Development that changes the character of the city needs to require resident support. Similarly, any major debt the city takes on for development (P3 funding) should also require a vote of the people because inevitably, this requires funding by a new tax to pay off the loan.

RE: Non-tax revenue

I am in strong support of non-tax revenue.

My recommendations:
• Resurrect the non-tax revenue adhoc committee that was eliminated in December 2020
• Include residents as advisors on this committee – be inclusive of diverse perspectives
• Review and consider the 50+ letters of financial suggestions residents provided in 2017
• Develop a list of viable solutions
• Effectively communicate to the residents the status and rollout with expected cost savings
• Create an environment in the city of fiscal responsibility and reward/recognize ideas contributions from staff to this effort
• Revitalize Malaga Cove and Lunada Bay plazas
• Charge for parking like Del Cerro park, which will may also reduce congestion and litter on the coastline
• Charge development fees that cover the full cost of planning staff/consultants, rather than have residents continue to supplement development costs
• Offer more optional fee-based services by the city
• Conduct operational and line-item budget reviews to identify efficiencies


Focus:
• Keep police
• Preserve PVE character
• Fiscal stability
• Rebuild trust””